Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Federal regulations for local police?

JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior MemberPosts: 6,583 Senior Member
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/217906-lawmakers-unveil-bill-to-de-militarize-cops

Before you all start rejoicing that LE agencies may have to adhere to federal regulations about the use / ownership of surplus vehicles granted to police departments, if passed, consider the implications...

This may open the door to future federal oversight of local police operations. It can further solidify federal influence into police activities and influence the use of these "demonic military vehicles". Why else would they not want police agencies to sell the vehicles? They aren't being exported for sale. Who cares if LEO #1 sells an up-armored vehicle to LEA #2?

I think this is a dangerous Pandora's box, potentially. Once you let the federal government into anything "local" it is almost impossible to get them out.

I see the path this whole citizens/police relations are going and a broad implication of how it will effect the criminal element in a way lucrative to them. An unattended serious mental issue in this country causing violence along with other factors that embolden criminals... Theft in my city alone is up 20% from last year.

I have a legitimate fear for the public at large in the coming decade...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers

Replies

  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Between Ft Lauderdale and MiamiPosts: 12,556 Senior Member
    I am sure many of your brothers in blue believe the same, but are afraid of repercussions of speaking and letting the general public know of these things.

    There is no doubt in my mind that we will not read about these actions in the paper or see them on the news until it is a done deal and too late for the general public to do anything about it.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • pjames777pjames777 Senior Member Lincoln, CAPosts: 1,421 Senior Member
    I find it difficult to believe that this Administration didn't know where these vehicles and equipment were headed. The "surprised" reaction by Feinstein and Holder is crap, IMHO. They don't want the citizens to buy used military brass and they track that but a mine resistant vehicle goes out to thousands of P.D. and no one notices??? BS
  • USUFBUSUFB Senior Member Posts: 830 Senior Member
    Imagine a world in which an Eric Holder or Janet Reno led Justice Department wields influence over local police matters. Shudder.
    Sometimes, I lie awake in bed at night wondering "Why the heck can't I fall asleep?"
    NRA Life Member
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,309 Senior Member
    I agree with you, Jason. Local control is the best bet for local police. And the Feds never get involved without a massive case of unintended consequenses breaking out, making it ALWAYS turn out for the worse.

    But after seeing so many chiefs of police stand shoulder-to shoulder with Washiington dirtbags wanting to put more federal noses in my private life, it's hard not to point and do a Nelson-from-the-Simpson's "Ha-Ha!"
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Under a logPosts: 27,457 Senior Member
    The Feds took over education with the Department of Education in 1979. What could possibly go wrong........Oh wait..........

    Don't need the Feds involved in local law enforcement any more than they already are. The Fed approach is 'one size fits all', and that always causes problems. Feds took the gas tax money, and then withheld it from states to force compliance with drinking age and speed limits. And the list goes on and on and on.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • LanceLance Member Posts: 149 Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/217906-lawmakers-unveil-bill-to-de-militarize-cops

    Before you all start rejoicing that LE agencies may have to adhere to federal regulations about the use / ownership of surplus vehicles granted to police departments, if passed, consider the implications...

    This may open the door to future federal oversight of local police operations. It can further solidify federal influence into police activities and influence the use of these "demonic military vehicles". Why else would they not want police agencies to sell the vehicles? They aren't being exported for sale. Who cares if LEO #1 sells an up-armored vehicle to LEA #2?

    I think this is a dangerous Pandora's box, potentially. Once you let the federal government into anything "local" it is almost impossible to get them out.

    I see the path this whole citizens/police relations are going and a broad implication of how it will effect the criminal element in a way lucrative to them. An unattended serious mental issue in this country causing violence along with other factors that embolden criminals... Theft in my city alone is up 20% from last year.

    I have a legitimate fear for the public at large in the coming decade...

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

    Believe it or not, I agree with you 100%.

    As much as think PDs need more oversight, I'd rather that come via civilian review. I trust nothing coming out of DC.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    I dunno what all is in the bill, but am weary of anything most of them don't bother reading before voting and no telling what they try to slide in with it.

    The link just said this, so what is actually in it????

    They (Civilian LEOS agencies) are already restricted from selling certain things/giving them away/ selling for scrap metal things like MRAPS and must return them back to the Pentagon.

    Is there something in the Bill that would give the Feds oversight of local PDs?

    "The new proposal would scale back the program by barring the transfer of certain equipment from the Pentagon to local police departments, including high-caliber weapons, sound cannons, grenades, grenade launchers and certain armored vehicles. It would also adopt new reporting requirements designed to ensure that equipment that is transferred under the program is not lost, stolen or misappropriated. "
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Living in a van, down by the river.Posts: 14,034 Senior Member
    I don't like it. I'm leery of some police use of former military equipment (but not all), but I'd rather have the municipality restrict the use or procurement of such items over the feds.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    USUFB wrote: »
    Imagine a world in which an Eric Holder or Janet Reno led Justice Department wields influence over local police matters. Shudder.

    I find it difficult to believe that this Administration didn't know where these vehicles and equipment were headed. The "surprised" reaction by Feinstein and Holder is crap, IMHO. They don't want the citizens to buy used military brass and they track that but a mine resistant vehicle goes out to thousands of P.D. and no one notices??? BS

    [/QUOTE]Insinuating That a US Senator and the number one federal LEO would lie. How dare you. wink! wink! I'm really just trying to confuse the NSA and avoid waking up in Guantanamo bay. Concerning fired military brass. It was not as bad in 1992 re: selling it to civilians but was still unnecessarily complicated. I was detailed as a range safety officer. When everything was finished and we were packing up I discovered a box filled with 120 loaded 30 round M-16 magazines. Returning live ammunition to the ammunition supply point (ASP) in original packaging was difficult enough. Once removed from boxes bandoleers and ammo cans it was impossible. Once fired brass could be returned in bulk and was just weighed. Fortunately our 1st sergeant was there to make the decision that we needed to expend the ammunition and recover the brass. We each pulled 6 m-16 A-1s from the racks and proceeded to go Rambo firing from the hip. We changed our rifle after every magazine so as not to damage them by overheating.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    I dunno what all is in the bill, but am weary of anything most of them don't bother reading before voting and no telling what they try to slide in with it.

    The link just said this, so what is actually in it????

    They (Civilian LEOS agencies) are already restricted from selling certain things/giving them away/ selling for scrap metal things like MRAPS and must return them back to the Pentagon.

    Is there something in the Bill that would give the Feds oversight of local PDs?

    "The new proposal would scale back the program by barring the transfer of certain equipment from the Pentagon to local police departments, including high-caliber weapons, sound cannons, grenades, grenade launchers and certain armored vehicles. It would also adopt new reporting requirements designed to ensure that equipment that is transferred under the program is not lost, stolen or misappropriated. "

    I'm not sure and that is what scares me. The" reporting requirements" is a bit ambiguous. If equipment - especially expensive equipment - is lost or stolen it gets written up immediately. If the government gave us a MRAP and we "lost" the huge damn thing, we'd have to report that; likewise if stolen. So I'm not understanding this reporting requirement... It already exists.

    Mostly it gets their foot in the door...

    You KNOW this bill would include verbiage like, "The requirements set forth in this law are not limited to the so-named requirements and the Department of the Interior Division of Police States may conduct additional audits and enforcement action not named specifically in the law."

    They ALWAYS put that vague crap in federal law... I'm telling you, having any lackadaisical or ho-hum attitude about this bill is a bad idea.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Kaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
    As much as I dislike the idea of the fed being involved in (any) local matters, this is what happens when PDs accept "free" gear. If local PDs want the big toys and do not want to have federal interference, they can simply buy the stuff out of their budgets directly from the manufacturers.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • LanceLance Member Posts: 149 Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    As much as I dislike the idea of the fed being involved in (any) local matters, this is what happens when PDs accept "free" gear. If local PDs want the big toys and do not want to have federal interference, they can simply buy the stuff out of their budgets directly from the manufacturers.

    To be fair, this is what happens when people allow emotions to override their common sense.

    Shouldn't smalltown Idaho or Missouri residents (as an example) share the blame for letting their local PDs arm themselves like this? ISIS ain't coming to the Ozarks, folks.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Kaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Lance wrote: »
    To be fair, this is what happens when people allow emotions to override their common sense.

    Shouldn't smalltown Idaho or Missouri residents (as an example) share the blame for letting their local PDs arm themselves like this? ISIS ain't coming to the Ozarks, folks.

    That was my point. IF and that's a BIG if, the local PDs want to buy this gear, then the constituents get a say in the purchase. Nobody complains if the gear is "free" until the PDs use them to raid the wrong house or the equipment gets stolen and nobody notices for a week. See Palestine, AR.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    As much as I dislike the idea of the fed being involved in (any) local matters, this is what happens when PDs accept "free" gear. If local PDs want the big toys and do not want to have federal interference, they can simply buy the stuff out of their budgets directly from the manufacturers.

    I'm not so sure that is the avenue this bill traveled on. It was quiet for the most part until media sensationalism over the "militarization" of police and now two politicians looking for notoriety are spearheading this effort. It's political posturing. I really don't think it's the result of accepting the things from Uncle Sam in the first place.

    Lance wrote: »
    To be fair, this is what happens when people allow emotions to override their common sense.

    Shouldn't smalltown Idaho or Missouri residents (as an example) share the blame for letting their local PDs arm themselves like this? ISIS ain't coming to the Ozarks, folks.

    Yes, but not in the way you imply, IMHO. After Sandy Hook it was all the rage to further demonize and vilify AR15. Now, police have these up-armored vehicles - many acquired in the wake of Aurora, CO and Sandy Hook - and now the public demonizes the vehicles and the decisions that got them in the hands of local PDs. Yes, they've been acquiring them before those incidents, but all these mass shootings have spurred more acquisition in response to much public outcry for more protection from mass shooters.

    So... Make up your minds people. Do you want up-armored vehicles available to LEO or not?

    I bought - with my own money - a plate vest, level 4 plates front and back, and I have 8 AR mags... 6 with green tip FMJ and 2 with 5.56 AP ammo... Am I too militarized or am I just prepared to deal with an increasingly more common occurrence?

    We have two malls, 7 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 4 high schools, 4 colleges (one is a university), 15 parks, several government buildings, a dozen or more government contractor facilities and a huge public downtown area. Should I only have 30 rounds of .45GAP and my soft vest?

    If you want everyday citizens to keep the right to keep and bear arms, prepare for the eventuality that some of the wolves will use them for evil... And evil is on the increase.

    Are YOU prepared for a shooting in your mall while you are shopping there?

    And it's funny you mention small towns and ISIS... No, ISIS is not a concern there. The county Sandy Hook is located in never thought any of their tiny towns would have a mass shooting either.

    Wake up now. Be vigilant and be reasonable.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Living in a van, down by the river.Posts: 14,034 Senior Member
    Wait... no evidence that the AR was used in the Sandy Hook shooting? The autopsies that indicated .223/5.56 ammo was used and the Bushmaster was found near his body, empty casings in his wake.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    Wait... no evidence that the AR was used in the Sandy Hook shooting? The autopsies that indicated .223/5.56 ammo was used and the Bushmaster was found near his body, empty casings in his wake.

    ETA: I removed the part about the AR at Sandy Hook since it was conjecture and not researched.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Kaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Are YOU prepared for a shooting in your mall while you are shopping there?

    Citizens COULD be prepared, but the LE vilification of citizens openly carrying ARs and AKs is applauded even here. If a lunatic or ISIS terrorist decided to shoot up the local mall, I'm left with my G-22 and a spare mag. You get an AR and 8 mags, I get a pistol and a spare mag. Not really an ideal SD situation, is it?
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Citizens COULD be prepared, but the LE vilification of citizens openly carrying ARs and AKs is applauded even here. If a lunatic or ISIS terrorist decided to shoot up the local mall, I'm left with my G-22 and a spare mag. You get an AR and 8 mags, I get a pistol and a spare mag. Not really an ideal SD situation, is it?

    I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to open carry rifles, but as it stands now, that's not possible and a majority of people simply wouldn't do it otherwise.

    AND a majority of people would still run away. Who will run towards the gunfire?

    AND police have a duty to respond, you don't. So, I HAVE to go, so yes, I have the equipment to do that as safe as possible.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Citizens COULD be prepared, but the LE vilification of citizens openly carrying ARs and AKs is applauded even here. If a lunatic or ISIS terrorist decided to shoot up the local mall, I'm left with my G-22 and a spare mag. You get an AR and 8 mags, I get a pistol and a spare mag. Not really an ideal SD situation, is it?

    You vilify ME infinitely more than I vilify you.

    And isn't it more likely it's the government law markers vilifying open carry citizens than cops doing it?




    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Living in a van, down by the river.Posts: 14,034 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Well, that's the last I recall it. I stopped following the circus after about a week. It's irrelevant anyways. Unjustified vilification of an inanimate object.

    Can you link your assertion? Or are you just recalling what that water-headed ME said in his press conference?



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    Presence of Bushmaster and expended rounds: page 20
    Presence restated and finding expended rounds and bullets matching said rifle: page 37.

    www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf
    I'm just here for snark.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Kaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to open carry rifles, but as it stands now, that's not possible and a majority of people simply wouldn't do it otherwise.

    AND a majority of people would still run away. Who will run towards the gunfire?

    AND police have a duty to respond, you don't. So, I HAVE to go, so yes, I have the equipment to do that as safe as possible.


    I don't give a damn what the majority of people do or don't do. That is not what defines liberty or individual safety. You have a duty to respond. I have a duty to survive. And make sure my kids survive. 10,000 cops with MRAPs and ARs cannot accomplish this when it hits the fan. Cops are second responders.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Kaniksu Nat'l Forest, IDPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    You vilify ME infinitely more than I vilify you.

    And isn't it more likely it's the government law markers vilifying open carry citizens than cops doing it?

    I have never vilified you. I have vilified LE for extra-constitutional behavior and the complete lack of accountability.

    The law markers (sic) will vilify OC people, but I haven't seen a congressman (or woman) harass anyone open carrying. That is ALWAYS the police.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I don't give a damn what the majority of people do or don't do. That is not what defines liberty or individual safety. You have a duty to respond. I have a duty to survive. And make sure my kids survive. 10,000 cops with MRAPs and ARs cannot accomplish this when it hits the fan. Cops are second responders.

    I'm not referring to a broad scale situation. If that were the case I would have ceased being a cop and evolved into a survivalist.

    Cops/paramedics/firefighters are first responders. Being in a place at the coincidental moment "it" occurs doesn't make you a responder, it just means you're there. BUT, I would LOVE to see a group of citizens band together and face a wolf on his offensive and dominate him. I'd buy those dudes a beer that night. But it won't happen - not in any regularity anyhow.

    And you absolutely have the duty to preserve your life and your family's lives - I get that. But as people are being mowed down by a madman with a gun, how many people have to run away before someone says "enough" and actually challenges that madman. 99% will flee. We need those that won't flee and they need the equipment to make that task of going towards the gunfire even safer.

    And since slinging a rifle on your back isn't always practical, I highly advocate keeping a rifle in your vehicle in a quick opening strong box or locker. And I mean keep a rifle in your vehicle. Because you never know.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • MichakavMichakav Senior Member Southwest PAPosts: 2,907 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    So... Make up your minds people. Do you want up-armored vehicles available to LEO or not? NO

    If you want everyday citizens to keep the right to keep and bear arms, prepare for the eventuality that some of the wolves will use them for evil... And evil is on the increase. Wrong. Gun violence has been steadily declining since 1993

    Bold for response.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement